Welcome to Wild West U: Kutztown University Opens Campus to Guns

Just over a week before Kutztown University will welcome the families and friends of soon-to-be graduates, the university has decided to revise a long-standing policy in order to welcome guns onto its 289 acre campus. While the massacre of students and teachers at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT is still fresh in people’s minds and the families of the victims are still canvassing the nation in support of reasonable gun control policies, KU President Javier Cevallos and his Administrative Council decided that now was the time to make it easier for students, faculty, and staff to carry weapons on campus.

Kutztown’s previous policy, which appeared on the university’s web page as recent as April 23, banned the “possession or use of firearms, explosives, other weapons or dangerous chemicals on university premises.” The 83 word policy was replaced by a two page policy on the “Possession of Deadly or Offensive Weapons on Kutztown University Campus,” detailing the policy, its purpose and scope. In a May 3 email sent by the president of the local chapter of the faculty union, APSCUF, Dr. Paul Quinn provided faculty with copies of the old and the new policy, saying that “Administrative Council discussed it at their last meeting, and it is now posted on the website.” Vigorous discussion of the issue is expected at the next APSCUF-KU Representative Council meeting later today.

The most significant difference between the old policy and the new policy has to do with what is omitted. The old policy prohibits weapons on “university premises,” while the new policy prohibits weapons only in “Kutztown University academic buildings, administrative buildings, student residence halls (both university owned or leased), dining facilities, student union buildings, athletic facilities, recreation centers, or while attending a sporting, entertainment or educational event on the university property or sponsored by the university.” In other words, you can carry weapons on campus as long as you do not enter a university building or participate in a university event. That leaves quite a bit of room to roam across Kutztown’s beautifully manicured campus while packing your favorite Glock.

When asked why Kutztown University’s administration decided to make changes to the policy at this time, Matthew Santos, Director of University Relations, said that “in conversation with other presidents across PASSHE [Pennsylvania’s 14 university State System of Higher Education] and conversations with legal, the time seemed right as other universities were making individual decisions.”

Kutztown’s administration initially seemed to indicate that the change in policy was the result of a directive from PASSHE’s Chancellor’s Office or Board of Governors. Santos said that it was his understanding the change in policy “goes beyond our administration.” He said that it was his understanding that the Pennsylvania Attorney General stated that banning weapons on PASSHE campuses is not legally defensible in court. (I am still awaiting a reply from the Attorney General’s Office). PASSHE and other state agencies were advised that they would have to adopt policies that were less than an outright ban. According to Santos, PASSHE could not dictate a system-wide policy, so they provided a model policy for each university to use in revising their policies.

***UPDATE*** 11:06am, 5/9/2013 – According to Dennis Fisher, Acting Press Secretary for newly elected Attorney General, Kathleen Kane, the Attorney General’s Office as a “hard and fast rule” does not entertain questions for organizations or institutions who want to know how to craft a policy that would withstand a court challenge. He said that the Attorney General’s office certainly did not do anything official and that lawyers for PASSHE universities are “on their own” when it comes to fashioning their policies. According to Fisher, as far as he knew the only way the Attorney General’s Office would come across this would be in the normal course of business – that is, if someone brought suit that would involve the AG’s office. ***

If such a model policy was distributed to each of the 14 PASSHE universities, most are either unaware of such a model policy or are unwilling to acknowledge that their respective administrations have been advised to change their policies. For example, California University of Pennsylvania’s weapons policy is similar to Kutztown’s original policy:

The possession of firearms or other weapons by any person on Cal U’s campus is prohibited. If you must possess a weapon while at the University, you must complete a form to store it at the University Police Department. You will need a valid reason for having a weapon while at the University, e.g., hunting or membership in a firearms shooting club. Violators are subject to University discipline procedures and criminal prosecution.

However, according to California’s Director of Communications and Public Relations, Christine Kindl, the university has “heard no concerns about our weapons policy.”

When asked if Indiana University of Pennsylvania (IUP) had received any directives or advice from PASSHE’s Chancellor’s Office or from the Attorney General’s Office to allow guns on their campus, Executive Director of Communications and Media Relations, Michelle Fryling, replied simply, “No.”

IUP prohibits all employees from “introducing, possessing, using, buying, or selling unauthorized weapons, firearms, ammunition, explosives, or items deemed by campus police to be dangerous.” Any exception must receive written authorization from the campus police chief. According to IUP’s Student Policy Guide, The Source, students are prohibited from the “possession and/or use of any weapon, which is any object used to inflict a wound or cause injury.” Furthermore, IUP housing FAQ states:

Neither firearms nor other weapons are permitted anywhere in IUP residence halls or apartments. Firearms/weapons include, but are not limited to, the following: rifles, shotguns, ammunition, gunpowder, fireworks, nun-chucks, air rifles, air pistols, knives, BB guns, bows and arrows, dart guns, paintball guns, and look-alike weapons. Hunters and others must register firearms and store them with University Police.

Likewise, Millersville University’s Director of Communications, Janet Kacskos, said that Millersville hasn’t “had any rumblings about changing our gun policy.” Millersville’s policy prohibits the possession of “deadly and offensive weapons on a property owned or controlled” by the university. Unlike California’s policy, Millersville’s policy provides a means to get an exception to the policy “for compelling reasons related to their personal safety,” but such a request is evaluated on a case-by-case basis by the University Chief of Police.

According to Kutztown University, Millersville’s policy was one of the examples Kutztown used to help rewrite its own policy. Upon first glance, the language of Kutztown’s policy seems to mirror Millersville’s procedure for gaining an exception to a weapons prohibition. Under Section 3.c, “Procedures,” the Millersville policy reads as follows:

This prohibition against deadly and offensive weapons on a property owned or controlled by Millersville University applies equally to those persons who have a government issued license to carry a concealed deadly weapon. Any University employee or student having such a license and wishing to carry their weapon on University property for compelling reasons related to their personal safety must request an exception to this policy by contacting the University Chief of Police. Such requests will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

By contrast, under Section B, “Scope,” the Kutztown University policy reads:

This policy applies to all persons who are enrolled, employed by, visiting, or providing services to Kutztown University. This policy applies equally to those persons who have a government issued license to carry a concealed firearm. Any university employee or student having such a license and wishing to carry their weapon on university property for compelling reasons related to their personal safety must request an exception to this policy by contacting the University Chief of Police. Such requests will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Upon reading this section of Kutztown’s new policy, many faculty, staff, and students have breathed a little sigh of relief. While not happy with the ability to carry a weapon on campus, some have grudgingly accepted that at least the University Police will have oversight of students, faculty, staff, or members of the public who want to legally carry their weapon on campus. It’s not like Kutztown is just allowing guns on campus, right? (Insert nervous laughter here).

But two things troubled me about that reading of the policy. First, Kutztown included this language under Section B,“Scope,” not under Section D, “Policy and Procedure.” That bothered me because if it is necessary to request an exception from University Police to carry a weapon on campus, that seems like a procedure. But, maybe the difference was cosmetic. Second, while the Millersville policy prohibits weapons on “a property owned or controlled by Millersville University,” no such language exists in the Kutztown policy. Kutztown’s policy seems to restrict the definition of “property” solely to university buildings and prohibit weapons on the rest of campus only during an “entertainment or educational event.” But this is splitting hairs, isn’t it?

I have worked at Kutztown University and have been an active member in our faculty union long enough to know to trust my gut on this stuff. In one of my first emails to Kutztown’s Director of University of Relations, Matt Santos, I asked him “ How does the university policy deal with the following two situations?”

A student/faculty member/staff member/administrator has a permit to carry a concealed weapon. That individual comes to campus carrying a concealed weapon, walks around campus, sits down by the waterfall, converses with friends. S/he does not enter a university building or participate in an event. Is this individual in compliance with the new policy or in violation?

A student/faculty member/staff member/administrator drives to campus and parks in a university parking lot. In the trunk of the individual’s car is a rifle, a shotgun, and handgun. The individual gets out of their car, locks the car doors and goes into a university building. The guns remain in the trunk of the car. Is this individual in compliance with the new policy or in violation?

He responded quickly saying that he needed to research the issue a bit and would get back to me. Later that afternoon, Santos replied with this:

You are correct. In both situations the individual would be in compliance with the new firearms policy under KU’s policy.

Following a series of email exchanges with some faculty members who were convinced that Kutztown’s new policy did, in fact, require students or faculty to apply for permission to bring weapons on campus, I began to doubt my earlier exchange with Santos. I wanted to make sure that I was correctly reporting the implications of the university’s new policy. So, I sent Santos another email that included this:

I am getting some conflicting information about what Kutztown’s policy actually means – and it seems that stems from some ambiguity between the “Scope” section of the policy and the “Policy and Procedures” section. In one of my first emails, I gave you two scenarios and asked if a person would be compliant with the new policy. Here are the two scenarios again:

A student/faculty member/staff member/administrator has a permit to carry a concealed weapon. That individual comes to campus carrying a concealed weapon, walks around campus, sits down by the waterfall, converses with friends. S/he does not enter a university building or participate in an event. Is this individual in compliance with the new policy or in violation?

A student/faculty member/staff member/administrator drives to campus and parks in a university parking lot. In the trunk of the individual’s car is a rifle, a shotgun, and handgun. The individual gets out of their car, locks the car doors and goes into a university building. The guns remain in the trunk of the car. Is this individual in compliance with the new policy or in violation?

You responded: “You are correct. In both situations the individual would be in compliance with the new firearms policy under KU’s policy. “

I just want to double-check with you and make sure that is accurate before I run my story.

Once again, Santos was quite helpful in his response. He wrote:

The two scenarios you presented would be compliant under the new policy. I checked this with our police department.

The possession or carrying of any weapon by any person is prohibited in academic buildings, administrative buildings, student residence buildings, dining facilities, recreational facilities, student centers, or while attending a sporting, entertainment, recreational or educational event on the university’s property. Entry into these buildings, in violation of this prohibition, will result in the individual being directed to remove the weapon immediately from University property.

Slippery Rock’s policy may prove to be even more permissive than Kutztown’s, making no mention of a need to apply for an exception to the policy through university police. However, given that a one is only required to apply for an exception to Kutztown’s policy if he or she wishes to bring a gun or other weapon into a building or to a university event, the difference may be negligible.

According to Matt Santos, Kutztown’s administration consulted policies from Millersville, West Chester, Shippensburg, and Slippery Rock in rewriting their weapons policy. Reading each of these university’s policies, I find it difficult to see how Kutztown used them to craft their own. Rather, the administration seemed to choose the policy most open to guns and other weapons — Slippery Rock’s — and copy it. But, just to make sure I am not missing something, I emailed Millersville, West Chester, Shippensburg, and Slippery Rock the same two situations I sent to Santos and asked them if the individuals in those situations would be in compliance with their policies. I’ll let you know how they respond.

One of the biggest ironies of the Kutztown University administration’s embrace of guns on campus is that KU President, Javier Cevallos, along with the presidents of five other PASSHE universities (including Slippery Rock), personally signed Kutztown University on to a resolution sponsored by the Campaign to Keep Guns off Campus. A total of 369 colleges and universities that signed the resolution nationwide. The Campaign’s resolution reads:

Whereas, following school shootings at Virginia Tech (2007) and Northern Illinois University (2008), the gun lobby’s response was to promote legislation that would prohibit colleges and universities across the country from regulating firearms on college campuses and allow students to possess and carry concealed handguns; and

Whereas, legislation has been introduced in at least 18 states that would prohibit colleges and universities from adopting policies that regulate possession of firearms on campus; and

Whereas, one state – Utah – passed legislation in 2004 that prohibits public schools or state institutions of higher education from adopting or enforcing any “policy pertaining to firearms that in any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property;” and

Whereas, colleges and universities have a legal duty to adopt policies to promote a safe environment for students, faculty, and staff, and

Whereas, the vast majority of educational and law enforcement professionals believe that prohibiting firearms on college campuses, except by trained security officers, is an essential element of an overall school safety plan; therefore

(Name of Institution/Organization) is opposed to legislation that would

preempt an educational institution’s right to prohibit or adopt policies to regulate possession of firearms on campus.

Apparently, one can gain some good press by standing tall against legislation that would prevent colleges and universities from prohibiting guns on campus and then pass policies designed to expand the number of guns allowed on campus. This is perhaps a double irony for Kutztown University community members who heard President Cevallos cite “children’s safety on a college campus in light of the Virginia Tech shootings,” as one of the justifications he used to close the Early Learning Center in 2010 – a pre-K, Lab School that traces back to the founding of the university.

Santos said that he was unsure whether or not Kutztown University would have to be removed from the Campaign’s supporters list. When I asked him how President Cevallos felt about the new policy given his previous support for the Campaign’s efforts to keep guns off campus, Santos replied,

Dr. Cevallos did sign the resolution. However, he also recognizes the importance of the Second Amendment in relation to this policy. He still believes in keeping guns off campus, and the way this policy is written, they are not allowed in our buildings, at events, etc.

When I began looking into Kutztown’s policy change, it appeared that Kutztown University administrators changed policy in response to prompts from PASSHE and the Attorney General to do so. However, the more PASSHE university policies I read and the more PASSHE university officials I spoke to, something didn’t sit right about that. So, I sent Matthew Santos yet another email in hopes of better understanding what motivated the change. I wrote:

Can you help me understand the process here, because I am a little confused about the reason KU changed its policy now. Initially, I thought you were saying that PASSHE and/or the Attorney General were requiring the change. However, here you say that the administration DID NOT receive a directive, only guidance. That suggests to me that Kutztown was not required to make the change in policy, but CHOSE to make those changes at this time.

Santos replied with three simple words: “That is accurate.”

So, we can put aside the arguments that Kutztown administrators were “just following orders,” or that there was “nothing they could do.” No. Kutztown University administrators made a choice. They CHOSE to open up the campus to more guns, just in time for Commencement. Congratulations to the graduates of Wild West U, class of 2013.

17 Comments to Welcome to Wild West U: Kutztown University Opens Campus to Guns

You mentioned Sandy Hook in order to use the deaths of children to force your fear of guns and untrustworthiness of your fellow students who are law abiding gun owners, on your readers. But nowhere is it mentioned that Sandy Hook had a no gun or weapon policy in effect when Adam Lanza decided to target the school. We will never know whether Lanza was aware of this policy or not, but we do know that there is no statistic that accurately portray the affectiveness of allowing guns on campuses. As a parent, and as someone with common sense, I know an Adam Lanza, Dylan Klebold-type lunatic may think twice before entering a campus where students and teachers may be armed, with deadly intentions. And if that doesn’t stop them, a good guy with a gun may; prior to today at Kutztown, only law breakers had guns. Don’t forget to mention that a no gun policy did not work at Sandy Hook, especially if you are going to mention Sandy Hook as an example of why no gun policies shouldn’t be changed.

Columbine had an armed officer on duty. Most importantly, those kids knew it, and planned their attack anyway. The fact they entered the cafeteria first, where the officer usually ate, was no coincidence. Your claim that someone is “using” Newton is crass and pathetic. Which of the dozens of mass murders by firearms would you prefer they use as an example?

The US has the most lax gun laws in the modern western world and has a murder rate by firearm that is 4 to 20 times higher than any comparable country. You need more stats than that? How many dead kids would satisfy you exactly?

Those stats are false. You need to factor defensive, and lawful use of force into the equation or you’re being disingenuous. Piers Morgan’s stats were as ‘cooked’ as they get. I have lived in Arizona where you do not need a permit to conceal a firearm and even thoug this is the Wild West and the City of Tombstone is within our borders the ‘Wild West Shootout’ scenarios you people like to suggest will happen have not occurred. Crime has gone down since 2009 when the legislation passed. How completely backwards your logic is when you assert that disarming law-abiding people will reduce the instances of criminals using guns illegally.

Mr. Mahoney, it was interesting to read your opinion piece, to say the least. While I find it unlikely that any words I put to paper (or in this case, the internet) will sway your prejudices, I will address the article’s shortcomings rather succinctly.

The Sandy Hook comparison is an emotionally driven false dichotomy. Kutztown University is not a primary school. It is not (and I do believe that both of us would agree) a closed-access campus with security check points and a fence/wall to prevent unauthorized persons or contraband to enter. The University is not a model police state, and is populated by adults. Some of these adults are law abiding individuals (more on that in a moment). Many of these law abiding adults that are 21 and older are licensed to carry in the Commonwealth, while others are veterans, active duty military, or off duty police officers. In their professional capacity, everyone is quite comfortable with them carrying a firearm, even entrusted with providing a sense of safety or security.

You mentioned that the Attorney General’s office finds the policy to be indefensible, and the source of this involves PA House Bill 40 of 2011, the commonly referred “Castle Doctrine”, which includes verbiage prohibiting state agencies (of which PASSHE, and by extension, Kutztown University, are) from enacting policy that goes against the state Uniform Firearms Act. This is no different than prohibiting municipalities from enacting their own legislation or policy making something illegal in one town that would otherwise be legal in the rest of the Commonwealth. It is, at the moment, untested and not clarified.

Many of the students that are licensed to carry in Pennsylvania already do so when off campus. I am one of them. These students do not cause crime, and as evidenced by their effort to become licensed to carry, are law abiding individuals. On the whole, the law abiding concealed carry community is exceptionally law abiding. In Texas, the rate of crime caused by persons legally able to carry concealed is 0.2%, while in Kansas, between 2007 and 2011, only 44 of the thousands of crimes in that state were committed by concealed carry holders. The Commonwealth does not keep such records to my knowledge, but the same rate would be consistent. Concealed carry holders are orders of magnitude more law abiding than the general population. If not for the policy change or the outright ban prior, you would have no idea how many concealed carriers would be on campus, because they would not be committing any crimes. Which is something we cannot say about the gun toting thugs roaming the halls of the Deatrick dorm, forcing their way into rooms and pistol whipping our classmates. I’m certain there are still laws against forcible entry, assault with a deadly weapon and battery, and fairly certain that those are felonies. It’s unlikely that those miscreants were very concerned with a University policy while committing several class A felonies.

When it comes to post-secondary schools allowing concealed carry (or more accurately, not expressly prohibiting it) in the state universities of Utah, Colorado, Virginia and the private Liberty University, there have been 100+ combined semesters without a single incident of accidental/negligent discharge, unlawful (or lawful, for that matter) shooting, intimidation with a firearm, or stolen/lost firearm. Your concerns about a wild west style shoot-out (which even on its face is laughable) are unfounded and irrational.

Which leads me to my final point: The Wild West was arguably safer than the East at the time. A person was more likely to be murdered in New York City than Tombstone, Arizona. Also of note, the gunfight at the OK Corral was an instance of law enforcement attempting to apprehend criminals (wanted felons, to be specific). It has little to do with a concealed carry discussion, and the dramatized version Hollywood has put forth is historically inaccurate.

I’ll leave you with a final note: In April of 2007, Seung-Hui Cho stalked the campus and halls of Virginia Tech for nearly two and a half hours, killing 32 people. Of those 32 people, 19 of them would have been eligible to carry a concealed handgun under Virginia law, but prohibited from doing so under University policy. In contrast, the 1997 shooting at Pearl High School in Pearl, MI was stopped by an armed faculty member. In 2002, a rampage at the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, VA was stopped when an off duty police officer and sheriff (both students at the school) subdued the attacker with their firearms.

Which is a more preferable scenario: an armed madman marches across campus unopposed, leaving a trail of destruction in his wake until he is stopped by the police or chooses to stop on his own, or that same madman is met by a law abiding student or faculty member lawfully carrying a concealed firearm and subdued?

“They conveniently ignore that those students also happened to be current and former law enforcement officers.”

I specifically cited the fact that those students were law enforcement officers. The previous Kutztown weapons policy would have actively disarmed any students who were also law enforcement officers.

“After killing two and wounding seven inside Pearl High School, the 16-year-old perpetrator left the building and went outside near the parking lot. The assistant principal—who was also a member of the Army Reserve—ran out to his own vehicle, grabbed a handgun he kept there, and then approached the shooter, subduing him at gunpoint until authorities arrived.”

I do not dispute this. Explain how forcibly disarming this assistant principal would have saved the lives of the people shot? By apprehending and subduing the shooter, he was able to prevent him from escaping capture and shooting other people.

“In 2008, a gunman who killed two and wounded two others was taken out by another patron in the bar, who was carrying with a valid permit. But this was no regular Joe with a concealed handgun: The man who intervened, who was not charged after authorities determined he’d committed a justifiable homicide, was a US Marine.”

What does this man’s service as a Marine have to do with the legality of his civilian carry? This was indeed a regular Joe with a concealed handgun. His being a Marine is a red herring.

As to the two cases cited by this article of civilian concealed carriers being killed, I posit this question: would McKown or Wilson have had a better chance of survival if they were not armed? The firearm didn’t help them, but considering the 2.5 million defensive gun uses in 1992 (http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/kleckandgertz1.htm, Table 2), I’ll take the odds of 2,500,000:2 any day.

Further reading of the article: “Those pesky facts haven’t stopped the “arm America more!” crowd from pressing the argument with alleged examples of successful armed interventions.”

I’m not crying that we arm America more. The law abiding are already well enough armed. I’m decrying that we stop disarming law abiding people to be preyed upon by the criminally violent. If bans worked so well, why don’t we just ban crime? In one breathe, I hear my peers denounce the ban on marijuana in this country as a failure and call for its repeal, and yet ignore the cognitive dissonance of their cries for a ban on firearms, as if somehow the violent criminals are going to just surrender their illicitly obtained weapons.

Every month the NRA publishes about a dozen instances where armed civilians justifiably use lethal force. The regular column, “The Armed Citizen” is limited to one (1) page, otherwise they would have to devote the whole magazine to the topic. Other sources claim civilians use guns in justifiable situations 3X more so than to the police. Alyssa, as usual, the lefties have it wrong. Just because you’ve be lucky, and probably weak, don’t destroy everyone elses right to protect themselves. Maybe the person saved may be you or someone you love. Bad people will do bad things, more so when unopposed.

Since several people have already proven you wrong, I’d like to ask the obvious question: When have zero tolerance gun policies ever stopped a mass shooting? They (quite literally, since at least the 70s when such misguided and pointless feel good policies started showing up) all happen in “gun-free zones”. So since extant gun policy obviously doesn’t work, what is continuing to cling to failed policy and expecting it to work? Besides ludicrous and one definition of insanity, of course. I suppose childish fits too.

What exactly are you trying to point to in this article? In not one of the scenarios did the licensed person cause any more damage. Yes, some of them were killed, but they knew the risks involved with trying to stop the carnage of a madman.

The article also seems to discredit people who are former military or law enforcement who stopped shootings. Why is that? Many of us who carry are former military or law enforcement.

It is interesting to note that there are a few prominent examples that were left out from this column. Namely, the ones I could think of off the top of my head, were the shooting in the Oklahama mall and the shooting in Arizona involving Gabby Giffords. In both instances there were law-abiding armed citizens. In the case of the mall shooting, a college student draws his firearm and makes the decision not to shoot because his line of fire is not clear (meaning he does not have a clear shot on the target, there were innocent people in the way). Evidently, the shooter sees the person with the firearm and then the shooter immediately goes to a stairwell and commits suicide. Similarly, in Arizona, two citizens draw their firearms. They do not fire for similar reasons as the college student in the mall. Neither of them were shot by police as law enforcement apprehended the true shooter.

Anyways, most of those stories indicated the shooter might have been finished his rampage, but cannot say so definitively. It seems the whole argument of the piece revolves around that unknown piece of data. The article also seems to ignore the idea of firearms as deterrents. It is interesting to note that ALL mass shootings except one (Arizona with Gabby Giffords) occurred in gun-free zones where it was either illegal for law-abiding citizens to carry firearms or against an institution’s policies.

Isn’t that part of the point, though. We’ve stripped real history from our schools and most individuals come up through our culture with that “fictional” image of the wild west…and of today. Those are precisely the individuals that are concerning. Not that “mad man” — those people are really outside of the discussion in that they will not follow the law anyway. It’s the people who have an image of justice that runs from Tombstone to Dirty Harry. “Make my day.” That’s the REAL world we live in.

On the one hand, it’s fashionable to decry the “youth of today” as being “too reliant upon TV and Hollywood,” and yet that very complaint gets thrown out of the window when talking about real world policies.

When all that is left is the exchange of ideologies in some sort of bizarre political dance, the rest of use are the ones that are left picking up the pieces. I have no delusions about the history. I also have no delusions or revisionist understandings of the present.

First, I resigned from Chairnet back in December 2012, so my name should come off the list .

Second, Administrative Council, like the University Senate, can only make recommendations. The idea that faculty are “stakeholders” in the decision making process at KU is, quite frankly, a joke. The president and management guards their prerogative very closely. In practice, the actual stakeholders are the hordes of consultants that are hired to make decisions.

One of the reasons that I left Chairnet was our inability to even get items on meeting agendas for discussion. University governance can be messy, but what we have running things is a vacuum.

Liberal standard, they see things are progressing in a way that is contrary to they pseudo utopia that the left is trying to impose on us, while the rest of the country is working towards progress. Then use all of the drama and emotion they can muster in order to win over folks, who are already educated enough to know that the 2nd Amendment is infallible and untouchable.

…Shall not be infringed!

More guns are the solution to the problem. More guns = less crime. The facts are our, do your unbiased research, sheep.

Become a Member today!

Monthly Membership Options

What are you waiting for? Help keep progressive, activist media going strong! Choose a membership level right here, or click on the Support and Membership tab at the top of the page for all the details and perks.

Support RCPress | Use This Link!

Use this link to shop at Amazon & Raging Chicken Press gets about 6% of the purchase price - AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO YOU. Bookmark the link and use it EVERY TIME you shop at Amazon.

So, feel a little good that you are diverting funds away from this corporate giant & help support progressive, activist media.

Labor History in Two Minutes brought to you by the Rick Smith Show

On
this day in Labor History the year was 1918. That was the day of the first general strike in
Canadian history.
The strike took place in Vancouver. It was held to protest the police killing of labor
leader Albert “Ginger” Goodwin. &nbs […]

On
this day in Labor History the year was 1938. At 8:30 in the morning union members gathered at the
port in Hilo, Hawaii.
They were there to protest the docking of a ship with
non-union workers, the SS Waialeale. […]